Wednesday, May 15, 2013

(John Shimkus, Republican
congressman, Illinois, chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment
and the Economy))

For the sake of our
planet, we need to start eating lower down on the food chain and we
need to do it fairly soon.

(David George Gordon,
science writer)

A story in need of an ending

In case you haven't heard
and most likely many haven't, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of
planet Earth has now risen to 400 parts per million. It's been
something like 3 million years since so much carbon dioxide has been
hanging over the planet.

The “little-bit” of good
news is that 400 ppm is part of a scientific model, a very complex
model with a lot of complex parts and poorly understood by most
people, which is comforting news to many politicians across the
globe. Models of course can be changed, modified or discarded. Unlike
the politicians, the scientists could be wrong about a lot or a
little and, as some people know, science tries hard to be proven
wrong.

The actual “good” news
is that we have some idea how to mitigate many of the effects of
climate change. For example, in terms of things like deforestation,
feed production and animal waste, the

livestock industry produces
between 18-51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industry
as well uses a lot of fossil fuels and water.

Could you imagine eating a
little less meat? What if you could be persuaded that the future of
future generations would quite probably be bleak, unless significant
changes were made starting right now? For that matter, the present is
feeling a little less certain; we may not need vivid imaginations.
For more on this subject see “Additional Reading.”

Genes made me do it—or not

Genetics has come a long way
since Gregor Mendel, in the 19th century, showed how the
inheritance of certain traits in pea plants followed particular
patterns. Today, with the mapping of the human genome and the ever
increasing power of supercomputers, we have arrived at a new
scientific Frontier-land. What we do with it is a story searching for
a good ending.

I once worked with someone a
number of years ago that believed humankind was “d-evolving,” as
though the expanding universe showed signs of slowing down and
reversing itself. Interestingly, Gerald Crabtree, Professor of
Pathology and Developmental Biology at Stamford University, has a
fairly controversial view on human intelligence.It's declining,
according to Crabtree.

He has said that, “A
hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to
providing food and shelter probably died, along with his or her
progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar
conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more
attractive mate.”

Crabtree has suggested that
the approximately 5,000 genes, which he believes are the basis for
human intelligence, have mutated over the years and modern man is not
as intelligent as his ancestors. The professor thinks we may have
peaked about 7,000 years ago! At the same time, Crabtree has said
that science and technology have allowed us to rise above the
“dumbing down.”

Regardless of Professor's
Crabtree's thought-provoking ideas, what we know about genes at the
present time is quite remarkable. It's not an either or—genetics or
environment—it's more like a blending, a mixing and sometimes one
is more influential than the other. The answer is frequently that …
it depends.

When we're young,
environment has a tendency to be more important but when we get older
and more independent, genes seem to play a larger role. Certain
behaviors, such as criminality, are heritable but only as side
effects of genes that affect personality traits. You don't for
example have genes for addiction, but you do have genes for
impetuosity and risk taking which, under the right environmental
circumstances, might lead to addiction.

Neurobiologists have found
out that there is a structure in our limbic brain called the
amygdala, which causes the feeling of unease. Research has shown that
people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to
have right-wing opinions. There is now a field called Genopolitics,
which accepts that political views most likely have a genetic
component.

Finally, a little bit of
good news to consider. Yes, sex and organisms are healthy, because
they release oxytocin, sometimes called the “cuddle hormone.”
This particular hormone has the ability to lower amygdala response,
which can then increase such traits as generosity and trust. David
Buss, a professor of psychology, conducted a “sexual preference
study a number of years ago.” He learned that the top two qualities
in a mate for both men and women were kindness and intelligence,
outweighing things such as money and physical appearance.

Thinking good thought

In summary, how we think,
make decisions and frame discussions needs to be understood a lot
better. We know now that there is both a genetic and environmental
component in decision making, and our survival as a species probably
depends on how effectively we can increase the size of who we think
belongs in our group. The “clan” is bigger than we think.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

My uncle was different from
the others although I was never able to put my finger on it exactly.
Sure, he was smarter than most and in some ways he didn't look like
everyone else I suppose. Now his eyes, the way he looked at you, as
though he knew something you didn't. It was a little spooky at times,
but I knew my uncle liked me a lot.

Memories however grow dim,
especially after some 7 million years. My uncle's full name is
Sahelanthropus (sa-ha-lan-throw-pus) Tchadensis (cha-den-sis), but
I've always called him Sah. Scientists, at least for the present,
believe he's the best candidate for our last common ancestor with the
chimpanzee.

Sah lived in Chad, Africa.
Seven million years ago, give or take, was when we diverged from the
chimp. We went our separate ways. This is difficult for a lot of
humans to accept, how we're all related to Uncle Sah that is.

The big family

“Family is everything,”
many of us like to glibly proclaim but it seems more like lip service
than anything else, at least a lot of the time. We know now that all
life shares a common ancestor, where our DNA ultimately came from.
Our family literally includes the humpback whale, the bald eagle and
the fruit fly. It's loud, boisterous, sometime bizarre and certainly
diverse. Yes, family is everything.

The Human Genome Project was
completed in 2003. We identified the approximately 20,000-25,000
genes in human DNA, the instruction manual for making a human. We
also determined the sequence of the 3 billion chemical base pairs
that make up human DNA. We have enough data now to study and analyze
for the next 100 years. DNA in living cells, to the best of our
knowledge, is universal and combined with the theory of evolution is
a model of how life is, came to be and its origins.

Knowing what we know

Geneticists speak about
“pseudo genes,” genes that once functioned in our ancestors but
are no longer functioning. But of course, we haven't always been
human. It appears in fact that we have not evolved that much because
our evolution has been more about loss of gene function.

This is where environment
has a great deal to do with who we are today. A million years ago one
of our ancestors “discovered” fire and some 10,000 years ago
began the Neolithic Age and the development of agriculture. Diets
changed, food was cooked, cooperation and communication on a large scale became
necessary and we consumed more starches.

Over a relatively long
period of time we found we no longer needed such strong jaw muscles,
which required a bony head that limited brain development. Our heads
gradually became round, which helped increase brain size.

Both chimps and humans have
the amylase gene for digesting starch but chimpanzees have two of
these genes and humans have six. As farming culture developed this
particular gene became more important. Interestingly, human
populations that do not farm, such as the Australian aborigines, have
fewer amylase genes.

Some 75 percent of our
identified disease causing genes, such as Huntington, Parkinson and
some types of cancers have been identified in fruit flies. As well,
what is called the pax6 gene regulates eye development in flies, mice
and ourselves. The fruit fly has turned out to be extremely important
in analyzing certain conditions found in humans. Fruit flies respond
like humans to alcohol consumption, from hyperactivity to passing
out. They're used in studying insomnia and severe aggression, and
altered serotonin levels in flies have resulted in a male-male sexual
orientation in the mutants.

The Neanderthal, who died
out some 25,000 years ago, is probably the last divergent branch of
our evolutionary tree. Approximately 2.5 percent of our DNA outside
of Africa comes from the Neanderthal. We likely met up somewhere in
the Middle East for a brief encounter.

The FOXP2 gene, which is
called the language gene, is identical in both humans and
Neanderthal. It appears however that certain genes in cognitive
development are different between humans and Neanderthal, possibly
because Neanderthals and humans had to solve different types of
problems, like anticipating prey for example or simply “life
styles.”

The short and long of it

All life on this planet is
intimately related. It goes way beyond “loving thy neighbor.” The
“them” is us. Homo sapians, collectively, are not an especially
lovable species and one could argue that the planet would be better
served if we simply went away.

On the other hand, an
evolutionary breakthrough could occur, a gene switched on or off and
our behavior changed or modified. The extraordinary achievement of
mapping the human genome (as well as other species) has the potential
for amazing possibilities, both good … and bad. A good first step
is understanding how large our real family is and our responsibility
in protecting it. That may be the best hope for our survival.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

If human beings are
basically tradition-bound, irrational creatures, how did science ever
develop in the first place? The short answer is, “With difficulty.”

(Uncommon Sense: The
Heretical Nature of Science, by Alan Cromer)

A state of bliss

Buffoonery has become a
pervasive condition in America, as observed on an almost daily basis,
especially among the political class. The latest example is a
relatively obscure Republican congressman from Texas, Representative
Lamar Smith. Mr. Smith, with no scientific expertise and apparently
no understanding of the basic scientific process, happens to be the
Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Representative Smith has
drafted a bill that, while directed at The National Science
Foundation, one of the premier scientific institutions in the world,
wants to set in motion a process for all federal science agencies.
His goal is to replace peer review and reduce the importance of
scientific replication with some kind of “criteria” chosen by
Congress, a criteria that seems to have less to do with science than
it does with politics and what Mr. Lamar and some of his colleagues
like or dislike.

The chairman of the
committee wants to be certain that any grant given out by the NSF has
“intellectual merit.” He claims to want to halt “frivolous”
and “wasteful” research being funded and insure that any research
that is funded be extremely important to “society at large.”

Now how could anyone be
against good governance and saving taxpayer money? ( The proposed
2014 science budget is approximately 0.2 percent of the $3.77
trillion federal budget.) After all, U.S. Senator James Inhoff has
made a career promoting climate change as a hoax. It's about greedy
scientists wanting research grants, as Inhoff will tell anyone who
will listen. For details on this dismal and ideally short-lived
episode see “Additional Reading.”

The expanding universe

What we refer to as modern
science began more than 300 years ago and it has met with resistance
of one kind or another the same length of time. Yes, there have been
some eureka moments but mostly knowledge was built on what went
before. Scientists always owe a debt to those who came before them.

Over the same period of time
the scientific method was developed and improved upon. It didn't
matter if you didn't like the outcome of the experiment or that your
familiar world view turned out to be wrong. The Earth really does go
around the sun and it can be demonstrated by a lot of people. Our
planet is more than 4 billion years old, and best of all it's not a
closely held secret known to only a chosen few.

Scientific research, both
public and private, must be robust and intellectually honest. It can
be hypothesis driven (to answer a specific question) or discovery
based (no specific hypothesis in mind). Above all, none of
us--anywhere--can be complacent whenever the usual suspects attempt
to turn science into something it's not. It is time to once again
confront the usual buffoonery. Make it loud and persistent. It's in
the self-interest of all of us.

Google+ Followers

About Me

"We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes--something known only to her and to the mountains." (Aldo Leopold, "Thinking Like a Mountain")
"We are the rich. We own America. We got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it." (Frederick Townsend Martin, 19th century plutocrat)